Mediaboss Marketing

Call it the scandal that will not die. Or, more accurately, the scandalmongering that will not die. In the last few weeks, there has been a spate of new assertions that presidential candidate Donald Trump and the Trump campaign did, in fact, collude with Russia to fix the 2016 election. No matter that special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors, an aggressive bunch with a big budget and all the powers of U.S. law enforcement, investigated the collusion allegation for years and failed to establish that it ever happened.

Now, there are more and more references to something called the "Russia hoax hoax." Anti-Trump types are unhappy that Trump, and some Trump defenders, and even some who aren't Trump defenders, now talk about the Russia investigation as a "hoax." Calling the Trump-Russia investigation a hoax, they argue, is a hoax in itself thus the "Russia hoax hoax."

"The Real Hoax" is the title of a web piece by the Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch. "It Wasn't a Hoax" is the title of an article by the Atlantic's David Frum. "The End of the Great Russia Hoax Hoax" is the title of a Deep State Radio podcast featuring prominent Trump-Russia promoters Natasha Bertrand of Politico, Michael Weiss of the Daily Beast, Josh Campbell of CNN, and Susan Hennessey of the Brookings Institution's Lawfare website. Lawfare also produced a podcast featuring Rauch and Frum, as well as disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok, moderated by Brookings's Benjamin Wittes.

Why all the new activity? The Trump-Russia true believers are deeply concerned about the fallout from special counsel John Durham's investigation of the investigation. In particular, Durham's indictments have demolished any possibility of believing in the Steele dossier, which played a big role in the Trump-Russia investigation.

It really did, no matter who tries to deny it. Remember, top FBI officials hired former British spy Christopher Steele to investigate Trump for the bureau. (It didn't work out because Steele couldn't stop talking to the press.) FBI leaders also wanted to include Steele's unverified allegations, later shown to be ridiculously thinly sourced, in the Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. In January 2017, the nation's top intelligence chiefs briefed outgoing President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump on Steele's tales. Then, when that briefing was leaked, the dossier became huge news when CNN reported it. Hours later, BuzzFeed published the whole thing. Ever since, it has been a near-sacred document for the truest of the true collusion believers.

But now, Durham has shown that some of the dossier's allegations, which we already knew were financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, were not only laughably sourced but also the work of a Clinton-connected politico who fed gossip to Steele's hired dirt-gatherer. The Steele dossier looks more and more like an elaborate and sadly effective political dirty trick.

It's not that the Russia hoax hoax crowd wants to defend the dossier. Rather, they are concerned that some will look at Durham's dismantling of the dossier and conclude that the entire Russia investigation was a hoax. Indeed, in that Brookings podcast, Rauch said he was concerned that some writers he respects Jesse Singal, Andrew Sullivan, Eli Lake, and Peter Berkowitz among them have dismissed the entire investigation. So, the anti-Trumpers have invented the Russia hoax hoax, the idea that anyone who, relying on Durham's findings, pronounces the whole Russia investigation a hoax is himself perpetrating a hoax. And doing Donald Trump's bidding, too. And that must be stopped.

The basic argument of the anti-Trump writers is that there really was Trump-Russia collusion. They didn't make it up! They go through the known events of the Trump-Russia timeline Trump's famous "Russia, if you're listening" statement, the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, the "contacts" between Trump campaign figures and various Russians, the polling that then-Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort provided to a Russian who was a longtime business associate and also, perhaps, an intelligence agent, and the various actions of Michael Cohen and Roger Stone and argue that it all adds up to an indisputable case of collusion, no matter what special counsel Mueller could or could not find.

This is not the place to answer each of the points in detail. Suffice it to say some of them are just plain wrong, while others are just plain weak. For example, when discussing the "Russia, if you're listening" line on the Brookings podcast, Rauch said that "Trump publicly ... asked the Russians to illegally ... steal and dump Clinton campaign documents." But in his July 27, 2016, news conference, Trump was not referring to Clinton campaign documents. When he mentioned "30,000 emails that are missing," he was clearly referring to emails from a personal account that Clinton, when secretary of state, deleted on her own, allowing her lawyers to stonewall a House investigating committee. Trump said so specifically: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." No one would expect Rauch to have done reporting deep inside the Trump campaign, but if he had, he would have known that the 30,000 missing Clinton emails, emails from her secretary of state days, had long been a topic of extensive discussion and speculation at senior levels of the campaign.

On the other end of the scale, the Trump Tower meeting is the best single exhibit for the collusion theory. But even it falls short. Promising negative information on Hillary Clinton, some Russians teased top Trump officials into a meeting. Then, they bored the Trump team with an adoption-based pitch to repeal the Magnitsky Act. The meeting ended pretty quickly with the Trumpers hurrying for the door. Nothing ever happened.

Other instances of alleged "collusion," such as the random set of contacts between Trump figures and Russians any Russians qualified, apparently don't tell us anything. The Manafort polling matter boiled down to a classic Manafort operation the polling, according to close associate Richard Gates, was not secret, and Manafort was using it to show that he was a big deal in hopes of getting money to pay for his profligate personal spending, which is what Manafort was always trying to do. (For a deeper look at each of the collusion charges, please see my 2020 book OBSESSION.)

Perhaps Rauch's strongest point is his claim that the Russia investigation could not have been a hoax because the Justice Department inspector general found that the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane was sufficiently predicated, although the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, noted that the FBI had to meet a "low standard" to start the investigation. But here's the problem: What if an investigation is sufficiently predicated and then cannot establish that a crime has been committed, much less who might have committed it? And what if investigators knew that early on yet kept the investigation going and going and going?

That's what happened in the Trump-Russia investigation. Mueller was appointed in May 2017. By Christmas, after a period of extraordinary cooperation from the Trump defense team, the Mueller prosecutors knew they could not establish that conspiracy or coordination, the terms they employed in the investigation, ever took place. (See OBSESSION again.) And they didn't play word games; Mueller wrote that "even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute." So, whatever you want to call it conspiracy, coordination, or collusion Mueller did not find it.

The bottom line is, the Russia hoax hoax effort is pretty weak tea. Plus, the part coming from the Brookings Institution group looks a little strange, given that a number of figures at the liberal think tank had a part in handling the dossier as it made its way, unknown to the public, through the Obama administration and the media.

But there is another angle to the Russia hoax hoax story that is more interesting than the conventional analysis from Rauch, et al. Going through court papers in the Capitol riot prosecutions, the writer Marcy Wheeler, who posts as emptywheel, has noticed that not only do the riot defendants believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, many also believe that Democrats, through the "Russia hoax," tried to steal the 2016 election from Trump. When they are accused of spreading the "Big Lie" their 2020 stop-the-steal narrative they counter by saying, in effect: "You call stop-the-steal the Big Lie? What about your claim that Russia rigged the 2016 election for Trump? That's the real Big Lie, and it was everywhere in the media for years after the election."

Wheeler noted the recent MSNBC appearance of Jan. 6 rally organizers Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lynn Lawrence. (The two are not accused of any crimes.) Host Chris Hayes went through some of the wildest 2020 stolen-election theories and said, "You do get that it wasn't stolen, right? ... that all of those claims were not true, right?" In response, Stockton turned the question around on Hayes, pointing to the media's yearslong Russia frenzy. "Do you now admit," Stockton said to Hayes, "that the Russia memes that you guys ran 24 hours a day in the early days of Trump ... [were] undermining democracy? ... There were dozens of ridiculous claims. ... There were tons of ridiculous clips."

Wheeler wrote: "A key purveyor of the Big Lie [Stockton] excuses his actions because MSNBC reported on a Russia investigation that was based off real facts." She continued: "This is just one example where Trumpsters excuse their own participation in the Big Lie by turning a bunch of different prongs of reporting on Russia in 2017 some undoubtedly overblown but much based on real facts about real actions that Trump and his aides really took into the equivalent of wild hoaxes about efforts to steal the 2020 election."

What is going on here? First of all, the Russia hoax hoax arguments are coming from writers and commentators who believed deeply in collusion, so deeply that even when an extensive investigation failed to establish that collusion took place, some of them faulted the investigator and kept on believing. Now, in Trump's refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, the stop-the-steal movement, and the Capitol riot, they see election-denial efforts that uncomfortably echo their own but turned up to 11 and, ultimately, into a riot and physical violence.

What if Trump had handled the post-election period differently? What if he had accepted the verdict of the election and had not accused Democrats of cheating, not launched court challenges, and not called for protests? What if, instead, Trump had followed the 2016 model and surreptitiously used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and a willing media, to slander and undermine Biden and his administration in hopes of driving them from office? That would have been following a now-established Democratic/media precedent.

But Trump did what he did. And the Trump-Russia believers did what they did. And now, those believers see Trump followers such as Stockton, defending his denial of the 2020 election results, throwing their old, unproven Russia allegations back at them. So now, they have come up with the idea of a "Russia hoax hoax" a new way to claim that it is the other guy who is making up false charges.

Originally posted here:
Never say die: Trump-Russia collusion theorists strike again - Washington Examiner

Nearly six months in, "The View" has yet to settle on a permanent replacement for Meghan McCain. And now, the longtime co-hosts are upping the pressure to pick a successor. | Todd Anderson/Disney Resorts via Getty Images

Before taking off for the holidays, the four long-standing hosts of The View had a message for executive producer BRIAN TETA: Were tired of the rotating cast of Republican guest hosts.

When MEGHAN MCCAIN departed in August, Teta initially told the Wrap that he was taking a little time to find a replacement. Since then, ABC has tried out a variety of conservative fill-ins, including S.E. CUPP, ALYSSA FARAH, MORGAN ORTAGUS, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, CARLY FIORINA, and GRETCHEN CARLSON.

Nearly six months in, the show has yet to settle on a permanent replacement. And now, the longtime co-hosts JOY BEHAR, WHOOPI GOLDBERG and SUNNY HOSTIN are upping the pressure to pick a successor, and voicing their displeasure at having to introduce new guest hosts week after week in a seemingly endless process that they find disruptive to the flow of the show.

Right now, we still do need a really conservative voice, Hostin told New York Magazine in November. And we need someone thats not duplicative of anyone else on the panel.

According to a spokesperson for The View, the program will continue to audition potential hosts in the new year, bringing some women back for a second turn. Farah will return in January, and the show will bring in other big names, like BARI WEISS and LISA LING neither of whom exactly fit the conservative label while the network continues to conduct focus groups on the audiences reaction.

Sources close to the show said that the search has stalled as executives struggle to find a conservative cast-member who checks all the right boxes. They will not consider a Republican who is a denier of the 2020 election results, embraced the January 6 riots, or is seen as flirting too heavily with fringe conspiracy theories or the MAGA wing of the GOP. But at the same time, the host must have credibility with mainstream Republicans, many of whom still support DONALD TRUMP.

The problem is that they bring people on under the mantle that this woman is a conservative, when theyre Never Trump, so they dont represent the country, said one of the rotating guest hosts.

At the same time, the anti-Trump conservative cant be seen as too chummy with the other co-hosts, as the networks market-research shows that the audience wants to see the women spar. Sources said that this has hurt the chances of ANA NAVARRO, a regular fill-in on the conservative chair who worked as a surrogate for JOE BIDEN in 2020: She is perceived by the producers as too friendly with the other hosts and not a traditional Republican.

They are really looking for a unicorn, said a former show staffer. They want someone who is going to fight but not too hard, because they dont want it to be ugly and bickering.

It doesnt help that theres a perception that whoever sits in the conservative host slot is on borrowed time, with prominent Republican former co-hosts like NICOLLE WALLACE, ELIZABETH HASSELBECK, ABBY HUNTSMAN and McCain leaving the show with claims of being bullied by their co-hosts and ABC executives on-set and off, while veterans like Goldberg and Behar have thrived.

Sources said that the show was eager to recruit young libertarian KAT TIMPF, but she turned them down because of the shows reputation for treating conservatives poorly and her contract with Fox. Timpf declined to comment to Playbook. Others have said that the show has a responsibility to fill the conservative chair with a strong Republican co-host ahead of the midterms if they are going to be a credible political talk show.

Our plans are on track as we continue to look for the right person to join our panel of smart, dynamic women, said a View spokesperson. We look forward to welcoming guest co-hosts for return appearances and introducing new names into the mix in the new year.

Good Monday morning. Thanks for reading Playbook. Drop us a line: Rachael Bade, Eugene Daniels, Ryan Lizza, Tara Palmeri.

A message from Google:

In September 2021, searches for job interview spiked in the U.S. As the world started to open back up, people were searching for their next thing. Search interest for job interview in the U.S. surpassed pre-pandemic levels in September 2021. Explore Google Year in Search 2021.

IN MEMORIAM Our illustrious colleagues at POLITICO Magazine have put together a package of obituaries and remembrances of the political players, agitators, chroniclers and pioneers who died this year and why they mattered. Among those profiled: COLIN POWELL, BOB DOLE, BOB MOSES, RICHARD TRUMKA, bell hooks, RUTH ANN MINNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, SHELDON ADELSON, RUSH LIMBAUGH, LEE HART, VERNON JORDAN, G. GORDON LIDDY, ROSE OCHI and CARL LEVIN.

Clockwise from top left: Vernon Jordan, Sheldon Adelson, Ruth Ann Minner, and Walter Mondale. | Todd Heisler/The New York Times/Redux Pictures; Ethan Miller/Getty Images; Dee Marvin/AP Photo; Stephen Voss/Redux Pictures

Click here for all 33 profiles, written by the likes of CONDOLEEZZA RICE, Reps. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-N.J.) and JUDY CHU (D-Calif.), former Rep. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-Fla.) and more.

BIDENS YEAR IN REVIEW WATCH: Biden got by with little help from his friends: A Beatles remix

During the first year of the Biden presidency, the nation just seemed to want to double down on divisiveness. Biden thought his first year was going to be like a happy Beatles song. The country needed help. It was time to get back and come together over him. We could get by with a little help from our friends! Please enjoy a very Beatles parody of Bidens hard days night and year, 2021.

A message from Google:

As the year comes to a close, see the people, stories, and events the world was searching for. Watch Google Year in Search 2021.

BIDENS MONDAY:

10:05 a.m.: The president will receive the Presidents Daily Brief.

11:30 a.m.: Biden will join the White House Covid-19 response teams regular call with the National Governors Association to discuss the pandemic.

12:15 p.m.: Biden will depart the White House en route to Rehoboth Beach, Del., where he is scheduled to arrive at 1:15 p.m.

2:30 p.m.: The president will virtually receive his weekly economic briefing.

THE HOUSE and THE SENATE are out.

PHOTOS OF THE YEAR

Supporters of President Donald Trump climb the west wall of the the U.S. Capitol in Washington as they try to storm the building on Jan. 6. | Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo

Police with guns drawn face off against rioters trying to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

A rioter hangs from the balcony in the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

THE PANDEMIC

THE OMI-CHRONICLES

Coronavirus cases are being reported at record levels across the world surpassing even last winters devastating peak in some places, write WaPos Bryan Pietsch and Annabelle Timsit. The UK, Italy, Ireland and France are among those nations that broke their previous records over the weekend. Here in the U.S., health officials warn that the country could soon see more than 1 million new cases per day, far beyond last winters peak of 248,000.

Sunday travel plans got totally derailed. As of Sunday evening, more than 1,300 flights with at least one stop in the United States, and over two times as many around the world, had been canceled, NYTs Marc Tracy writes.

Health experts are urging city and state officials to do more to ensure that the most vulnerable particularly nursing home residents get boosters quickly, NYTs Sharon Otterman and Joseph Goldstein write. New York, like much of the country, was slow to push boosters before the new variant arrived a few weeks ago, and has largely left administering third doses to the long-term care facilities themselves, some of which are struggling with the task.

Business leaders are asking Congress for another dip into the national piggy bank. The question Congress will face when it returns in January is whether the latest Covid-19 wave justifies a new rescue beyond the $1 trillion of emergency small business assistance lawmakers have approved since March 2020. Most of the programs have been tapped out or are winding down, Zachary Warmbrodt writes.

Meanwhile, Bidens plan to use USAID to help vaccinate the world in 2022 is running out of money, Erin Banco reports. Over the past year, the agency has largely relied on more than $1.6 billion allocated through the American Rescue Plan to help facilitate the shipment and administration of Covid-19 vaccine doses internationally. The agency has either used that money or already earmarked it for several months into the new year to help countries prepare to receive and distribute the doses, the officials said.

THE WHITE HOUSE

BEHIND-THE-SCENES BACKBITING Daniel Lippman has the scoop on an explosive whisper campaign that tried to sink STEVEN BONDYs appointment as U.S. ambassador to Bahrain. This is one such story youve not read before. It features a decorated diplomat with an unblemished record, about to claim a career-defining prize: an ambassadorial posting to a key Middle East ally. It involves serious accusations and counter-accusations of racism, none of which were made publicly. Hidden not far beneath the surface are personal histories and policy disagreements in this case between appointees of former President Donald Trump and the Deep State bureaucracy that havent been put to bed with the advent of a new administration. To tell the tale properly, we need to go back three years and start in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

THE ECONOMY

HOLIDAY SHOPPING UP BIG Despite many worries that the new surge coupled with headache-inducing supply chain woes would stunt holiday sales this year, data says that doesnt seem to be the case. American consumers spent at a brisk pace over the shopping season, as an early rush to stores amid worries about supply and delivery problems muted the effects of a Covid-19 surge that disrupted some businesses and crimped spending before Christmas, WSJs Suzanne Kapner and Paul Ziobro report.

A message from Google:

This year, U.S.-based searches for asian owned were 2X higher than in 2020.

POLICY CORNER

THE NEW RULES OF MONOPOLY A new breed of antitrust activists say its time to rewrite the rules that have long protected competition in the American economy, reports Leah Nylen. And unlike many of the hottest issues embroiling Washington, the antitrust debate doesnt break down along neat partisan or ideological lines. Supporters of sweeping change include progressive Democrats like Massachusetts Sen. ELIZABETH WARREN and Federal Trade Commission Chair LINA KHAN, as well as conservative Republicans like Missouri Sen. JOSH HAWLEY and Colorado Rep. KEN BUCK, all of them facing resistance within their own parties.

ALL POLITICS

MAGA MOVES Trumps staunchest allies in Congress are aiming to grow their ranks in the midterms by primarying establishment Republicans. The goal, organizers of the effort say, is to supersize the MAGA group in the House from its current loose membership of about a half-dozen and give it the heft that, combined with its close alliance with Trump, would put it in a position to wield significant influence should Republicans win the House majority, WaPos Colby Itkowitz writes. A number that jumped out at us: In 2020, Trump won 45 [House] districts by more than 15 percentage points. Under new maps already finalized in more than a dozen states, he would have won 78 districts by that margin.

THE NEW GOP WINSOME SEARS road to becoming Virginias lieutenant governor and the first Black woman elected to statewide office in the commonwealth was unlikely. Now, she wants to change the conversation among Black Republican voters. This is the question that Ms. Sears embodies: whether she is a singular figure who won a surprise victory or the vanguard of a major political realignment, dissolving longtime realities of race and partisan identification, NYTs Campbell Robertson writes in Richmond, Va. Democrats say there is little evidence for the latter, and that Ms. Sears won with typical Republican voters in an especially Republican year. But Ms. Sears insists that many Black and immigrant voters naturally side with Republicans on a variety of issues and that some are starting to realize that. The only way to change things is to win elections, she said. And who better to help make that change but me? I look like the strategy.

AMERICA AND THE WORLD

FIRST IN PLAYBOOK PBS In Their Own Words series will debut a new episode on former German Chancellor ANGELA MERKEL on Tuesday, Dec. 28. The special will feature interviews with HILLARY CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH and others to explore how Merkel overcame fierce opposition, a vicious press and rampant sexism to lead Germany and Europe with a steady focus on peace and freedom. In an exclusive clip shared with Playbook, Clinton and Bush talk about Merkels dealings with world leaders like Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN. Bush even tells a story about when he introduced his dog, Barney, to Putin. The 2:49 clip

ON THE GROUND In Ukraine, the military is training civilians as a precaution if Russia takes the extraordinary step to attack the country, drawing on a lesson from the United States wars in Iraq and Afghanistan of the past two decades, when guerrillas provided enduring resistance in the face of vastly superior American firepower, NYTs Andrew Kramer writes in Kyiv.

JUDICIARY SQUARE

LAW OF THE LAND Federal prosecutors are increasingly using racketeering statutes to go after a broader array of criminal activity, applying them in ways that deviate from the laws original goal of dismantling organized crime, WSJs Deanna Paul reports.

Alexander Vindman portrayed himself on Sunday nights season finale of Curb Your Enthusiasm. While on book tour in the episode, Vindman overhears Larry David on the phone asking a Santa Monica city councilwoman for a favor while dangling a large donation in front of her.

IN MEMORIAM via APs Jake Bleiberg: Sarah Weddington, a Texas lawyer who as a 26-year-old successfully argued the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade before the U.S. Supreme Court, died Sunday. She was 76.

via NYTs Vimal Patel and Azi Paybarah: Richard Marcinko, the hard-charging founding commander of Navy SEAL Team 6, the storied and feared unit within an elite commando force that later carried out the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, died Saturday at his home in Fauquier County, Va. He was 81.

TRANSITION Jon Selib will be managing director and global external affairs leader at Clayton, Dubilier & Rice. He previously was SVP of global policy and public affairs at Pfizer, and is a Max Baucus alum.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD Michael Ly, director of public policy at the American Kidney Fund, and Katie Leesman, an associate at Ballard Spahr, welcomed Vinh Michael Ly last Monday. Pic

HAPPY BIRTHDAY: Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) Laura Lott of the American Alliance of Museums Shhrazade Semsar Emily Murphy Julie Benkoske NBCs Savannah Guthrie Mercedes Schlapp Kurt Volker Andi Lipstein Fristedt Gray Televisions Jacqueline Policastro Osaremen Okolo Jessica McCreight Brown Marc Smrikarov of Chatham Strategies James Burnham Andi Pringle Emily Hytha Googles Jeff Murray Kamau Marshall Tierney Sneed Joe Harris Josh Litten BCW Globals Karen Hughes POLITICO Europes Tim Ball and Nick Vinocur Arthur Kent Benji Backer of the American Conservation Coalition Hemanshu Nigam Mike Thomas Barclay Palmer Joseph Collins Andrew Chesley Catherine Marx former Reps. Abby Finkenauer (D-Iowa) and Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) (6-0) James King

Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

Send Playbookers tips to [emailprotected]. Playbook couldnt happen without our editor Mike Zapler, deputy editor Zack Stanton and producers Allie Bice, Eli Okun and Garrett Ross.

A message from Google:

In 2021, mental health was top of mind. As the pandemic entered its second year, people around the world looked for ways to prioritize their mental health. This year, the world searched for how to maintain mental health more than ever before. Explore Google Year in Search 2021.

Read more from the original source:
POLITICO Playbook: 'The View' struggles to find a Republican - Politico

National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified documents about a claim Hillary Clinton ordered a campaign plan to stir up a scandal by linking President Trump to Russia in 2016 and that indicate then-President Barack Obama knew about her possible role.

Ratcliffe provided to Fox News an undated set of notes from then-CIA Director John Brennan about a briefing for Obama that touched on the allegation, and an investigative referral from the CIA to the FBI describing the claim.

Today, at the direction of President Trump, I declassified additional documents relevant to ongoing Congressional oversight and investigative activities, Ratcliffe told Fox News Tuesday.

Most of the unredacted content in the documents was released by Ratcliffe last week, though minor new details cast doubt on former FBI Director James Comeys declaration last week that he could not recall the claim, which Clinton allies deny as baseless potential Russian disinformation.

The newly released notes from Brennan, who now is a fiery anti-Trump commentator, indicate that Brennan briefed Obama on alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 28 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.

Ratcliffes initial disclosure said that, according to Brennans notes, Clinton allegedly approved the scheme on July 26. The minor inaccuracy shortens the window of time between Clintons alleged approval of the plot and the FBI opening its investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion on July 31, 2016.

A previously undisclosed annotation in Brennans notes appears to attribute to Obama an interest in any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia.

The initials JC also are on the briefing notes, implying that Comey attended the meeting where Brennan discussed the theory with Obama.

In the margins are also references to Denis and Susan, which could refer to former national security adviser Susan Rice and Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough.

Most of the document was redacted by Ratcliffes office, making it impossible to understand the full context of the meeting or when exactly it occurred.

The investigative referral from the CIA to the FBI, meanwhile, contains the previously disclosed passage noting an allegation about Clintons approval of a plan concerning US Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.

The actual referral is mostly redacted, but additionally states that the document was sent per FBI verbal request. It was addressed to Comey, but to the attention of then-FBI Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, who notoriously traded anti-Trump text message on work phones with his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

In his initial disclosure last week, Ratcliffe said the claim against Clinton was unproven and could be an exaggeration or fabrication.

A Clinton spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said last week the claim was baseless bullst.

But the Trump campaign boosted the latest release. It is imperative that the American people now learn what then-Vice President Joe Biden knew about this conspiracy and when he knew it, campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said in a statement.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Comey said he could not recall the allegations that Clinton decided to falsely allege Trump was in cahoots with Russia.

I do not remember the referral, Comey told Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) during the hearing.

That doesnt ring a bell with me, Comey confirmed when Graham read aloud from Ratcliffes initial disclosure.

Trump mocked Comeys memory and accused him at a Minnesota rally that night of being among the crooks who he said tried for a coup against his presidency. Special counsel Robert Mueller last year found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

I watched Comey, he couldnt remember anything, but hes writing all these books. Theyre guilty as hell, Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in a Thursday interview.

Read the rest here:
Spy chief releases docs on claim Hillary Clinton cooked up ...

One of the biggest questions everyone asks about fake news is whether it actually affected the 2016 US Presidential election. Congress and the FBI have been investigating this, and concluded (so far) that fake news was intended for that purpose. No one has suggested that people didnt vote their minds, so without a doubt, the election was legitimate. But did fake news change peoples minds?

This question is harder to answer. To try, we need to find out two things: First, how many people have been exposed to fake news and, second, how many of them changed their opinions in reaction to it?

We know from its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, himself, that 126 million Americans were shown Russian-backed, politically-oriented fake news stories via Facebook during the 2016 US presidential election campaign. Not everyone who was presented with fake news headlines on Facebook necessarily read the stories, or consciously perceived them, or was affected by them. However, even if only a fraction of those who were shown the stories saw them and even if an even smaller fraction opened the stories, and if some of those people were influenced by them, thenbecause the election was so close in some of the swing statesit could have changed the voting choice of enough people to affect the election. All hypothetical, but a real potential.

It wasnt just Russians paying for Facebook users to see fake news that could have played a role. Another figure that raises cause for concern is that leading up to the 2016 Presidential election, the 20 most popular fake news stories received more shares, reactions, and comments (8.7 million engagements) than the most popular 20 real news stories (7.3 million engagements) [1]. Again, these numbers have to be taken with caution. The top 20 stories are only a small fraction of all new stories. Moreover, most of the engagement with fake news stories came from a small fraction of Americans: 10% of Americans accounted for 60% of the traffic on fake news sites.

To sum up the answer to our first question: Many people were exposed to fake news just before the 2016 election but it is difficult to estimate how many people actually saw it and whether they were influenced by it.

In the aftermath of the 2016 elections as the extent of fake news became clear, three scientists from the Ohio State UniversityGunther, Beck, and Nisbetexplored whether people who might have changed their votes from Democrat to Republican were affected by fake news [2]. Why these particular people? The scientists reasoned that, like most people, those who voted for Obama in 2012 would probably have voted for Clinton in 2016 unless something changed their minds. So they found a group of voters who voted for Obama in 2012. Of these Obama voters, only 77% of them voted for Clinton in 2016; 10% voted for Trump, and the others didnt vote or voted for someone else.

The researchers asked the voters how much they believed in three statements, each of which, according to independent analysis, had been promoted by fake news but were actually false: that Hillary Clinton was in poor health due to a serious illness, that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump, and that, during her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton approved weapon sales to Islamic jihadists including ISIS.

Although most people didnt think that these statements were true, there was a very strong link between the belief that they were true and the way people voted:

Among those who believed none of the three fake news stories, 89 percent cast ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016; among those who believed one fake news item, this level of electoral support fell to 61 percent; but among those who had voted for Obama in 2012 and believed two or all three of these false assertions, only 17 percent voted for Clinton.

And if these percentages of voterseven 17% of former Obama supportershad voted for Clinton in the states that went from Blue to Red in 2016, instead, it would have changed the outcome of the election.

Again, its important to be cautious interpreting these results. Just because these people said that they thought these statements were likely to be true doesnt mean they actually saw the fake news stories before the election. So, it doesnt prove that they crossed sides because theyd been exposed to fake news. But it may be as close as we can get to identifying if fake news affected voters.

But theres also reason to believe that it wasnt fake news, but good old fashioned clickbait, that helped sway voters. A WIRED article by Antonio Martinez explains how the Trump campaign got more ads on Facebook, cheaper, than the Clinton campaign did [3]. Facebook charges advertisers different rates depending on (a) the location of and competition for users, so that urban Facebook users (primary targets for the Clinton campaign) cost more to advertise to than do rural voters (who the Trump campaign sought), and (b) Facebook also prioritizes bids for ads that are seem more likely to generate a click, a like, or a comment. Because Trump used provocative content to stoke social media buzz, according to Martinez, his campaign was able to win the bidding contest to place more ads for more people online. This explanation seems to have merit, too. Look at the section of our website about the way analytics help target ads to reach certain types of social media users, and how humans and bots pass along certain messages, you can see how powerful these strategies may have been.

There are several important take-aways here. First, its hard to say how big the impact of fake news was on the 2016 election. The Ohio State study strongly indicates that when people believe fake news, it affects their votes. So when elections are close, fake news can impact who ultimately wins and who loses. Finally, whether it was through fake news or provocative advertising, the use of social media seems to be able to affect elections differently than were used to seeing. The economics, computer algorithms, and social dynamics that make up social media platforms are doing things to politics that traditional media cannot.

References

[1] D. Kurtzleben, Did Fake News On Facebook Help Elect Trump? Heres What We Know, NPR.org, 11-Apr-2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/11/601323233/6-facts-we-know-about-fake-news.... [Accessed: 03-Aug-2018].

[2] R. Gunther, P. A. Beck, and E. C. Nisbet, Fake News Piece for The Conversation with Methodological Appendix, 15-Feb-2018. [Online]. Available: https://cpb-us-west-2-juc1ugur1qwqqqo4.stackpathdns.com/u.osu.edu/dist/d.... [Accessed: 03-Aug-2018].

[3] A. G. Martnez, How Trump Conquered Facebook Without Russian Ads, Wired, 23-Feb-2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.wired.com/story/how-trump-conquered-facebookwithout-russian-.... [Accessed: 02-Aug-2018].

More:
The Danger of Fake News to Our Election | Center for ...

Reuters Videos

The Saudi-led coalition battling the Houthis in Yemen said on Friday it destroyed three drones launched towards southern Saudi Arabia and a fourth over Yemen.It said the group "failed to launch two ballistic missiles" and they fell inside Yemen.Saudi Aramco, the state oil firm, said when contacted by Reuters that it would respond at the earliest opportunity.The Houthi military spokesman Yahya Sarea said in a televised press conference that the group had attacked Aramco's refineries in Jeddah as well as military targets in Riyadh, Jeddah, Abha, Jizan and Najran.Sarea's statement contained inaccuracies. It mentioned the wrong name for the international airport in Jeddah and the wrong location for King Khalid base, saying it was in Riyadh when it is actually in the south of the kingdom.The Saudi-led coalition said later on Saturday it has attacked 13 targets during a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen.The operation hit weapons depots, air defense systems and drones' communication systems in Sanaa, Saada, and Marib provinces, the coalition said.Aramco's refinery in Jeddah was decommissioned in 2017 but it has a petroleum products distribution plant there that the Houthis had previously targeted in March.The Houthis have repeatedly launched cross border attacks on Saudi Arabia using drones and missiles since the coalition intervened in Yemen in March 2015 after the movement ousted the Saudi-backed government from the capital, Sanaa.Efforts led by the United Nations and the United States to engineer a ceasefire in Yemen have stalled.The conflict, seen as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, has been in military stalemate for years. The Houthis are pressing an offensive in Marib, the internationally recognized government's last northern stronghold, as well as in other areas in Yemen.

Original post:
Hillary Clinton Trolls Steve Bannon With Just 5 Words